Was I too mean?

Here is a cut/paste of a discussion that I was having with someone who is quite religious about the separation of church and state. Earlier in this threat I composed a long post, using case law, quotes from the Treaty of Tripoli, and from Thomas Jefferson himself. Read below, I feel like I made a pretty masterful response to his retort.





sboatcar wrote:
I don't see how my beliefs and opinions on evolution have to do with what the law says.


But if you must know, yes, I am an atheist, and I believe that scientific theories should be taught in school.


planecap wrote:

Here is how your beliefs and opinions have to do with what the law says. You believe in "separation of church and state" so you claim but you lie. Because you also say (trying to do a little side step here) that scientific theories should be taught in schools. However we both know that the theory of evolution is based on the religion of atheism. So you really don't believe in separation of church and state but do in fact believe that religion should be endorsed by our government and taught to our kids in the public school system only as long as it is your religion. Do you know what this makes you? Yes you do and so do I.

But you see sboat the reality is that this country was in fact based on belief in God and the bible and yes (as I have done in the past) will show this very clearly. And by the way I will not be limiting the discussion to the "law" but will extend it to our foundations that lead to the law. Which will by necessity force accepting documents like the Mayflower Compac and the Declaration of Indedpendence and the speech given by Patrick Henry and anything else that shows what our foundations are. You will not have the choice of limiting the discussion only to the Constitution exclusively. And by the way I am a veteran and have served this country for six years in the Marine Corps so don't get the idea you will bully me very easily.

Now are you sure you want me to start this new thread or would you like to concede that you are trying to be deceptive?



sboatcar:

How exactly is having no religion a religion? I'm not trying to be deceptive. Is quoting the founding fathers and the Supreme Court of this country deceptive? Have we been deceived by them? When you joined the marines, did you swear an allegiance to uphold the declaration of independence or the mayflower compact? Lets take a look at what the Oath of Enlistment says:
""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic....."

So where in this oath do you swear to uphold the declaration of independence or the mayflower compact? Perhaps the president does that in his oat of office.....

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

No? So, then it must be members of congress who swear to uphold the DOI or the Mayflower compact:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"

Wow, not there either? Then surely it must be the justices of the Supreme Court who are legally bound to uphold the Declaration of Independence and the Mayflower Compact!

"I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as under the Constitution and laws of the United States."

No? Wow, nobody swears an oath to uphold those documents to which you seem to think this country is run by. Imagine that!

Where in United States law is the Mayflower compact (which swears allegiance to King James, so would you also say that we are beholden to the crown still?) or the declaration of independence actually used as a basis for anything? I'm talking about reality here, our country was not founded by either of those documents, and as a matter of fact, the Mayflower Compact was put into place with a minority of the original colonists voting for it, not very democratic.
Where can you reference any of the courts of this country using the declaration of independence or the mayflower compact as having any sort of legal precedent in this country? You may believe that they hold weight, but reality will prove you wrong every time.

As far as my beliefs go, I subscribe to no religion, no religious group, none of that. I believe that if we take the Oxford english dictionary and look at the definition of religion, you'll find that a 'lack of religion' does not qualify as 'religion'. That, my friend, is what is called an oxymoron. I'm not trying to bully you, I'm simply pointing out that reality doesn't match up with the things you're saying.

So this is how the dictionary defines religion:

Religion:
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7.religions, Archaic. religious rites.

8.Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.


By this definition, which is the one accepted generally throughout english speakers in the world, my lack of beliefs would not be considered a religion. It is your opinion that my beliefs are some sort of religion, but again, the facts of the matter get in the way, and again, you are wrong.

I think that you're having trouble differentiating between facts, beliefs, and opinions, so let me break it down for you, so we can all be on a level playing field here, and you seem to require a little education on these terms.

Fact
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.

Opinion
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

3.the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second Medical opinion.

4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.

5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

6.a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

Belief
–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.


Now that the terms are defined, you can see that what I have stated in my previous posts is the fact of constitutional law, while you continue to use belief and opinion, and attempt to muddy the waters by saying that the facts which I have stated are my opinion on the matter, when in fact they are not my opinion, the are the fact of the matter. My personal views on these laws do not make them any less laws.
Second, you need to understand the fact that our country was founded on the constitution of the united states. Your opinion and belief that these other documents define the law of the land here in the United states are nowhere grounded in fact, only in your own opinion which would like it to be so. In my opinion, I should be a billionaire, but the fact is that I am not.
Thirdly, my lack of belief in a religion does not automatically make me a member of a religion which was concocted out of the belief that everyone must have some sort of religion, or that facts are a religion in and of themselves.

that the Mayflower Compact and the Declaration of Independence are ruling documents in this country. The first was a governing document for a colony, and the second did not set up a government or laws, it was exactly what it says it is.

I You shall have no other gods before me
II You shall not make for yourself an idol
III You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
IV Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

not at all mean, the dick called you a liar outright, you can say whatever the hell you want in that case.

I do get a kick out of people that think that atheism is a religion, they don't understand the term very well.

I once had to correct a guy on the difference between the Puritans and the people that wrote the constitution. I wasn't even born in this country.

I also get a kick out of the part where warns me not to bully him because he is an ex-marine. I'm not bullying anyone, I'm simply trying to educate him on the difference between fact and belief, and give him a little lesson in civics, which I guess he must have failed miserably in high school.

a common characteristic of the ignorant and/or arrogant.

if I at least make him do a little homework and think for himself a little bit, that will be enough.

You painted a very clear picture and used sound evidence. I may have to save this:) I have Fundy cousins who routinely try to pull this sort of BS on me.

atheism--it's based in science. His bias in that direction would make in impossible to have a rational discussion with him. You did fine.

planecap wrote:

Your understanding of the 1st amendment is entirely wrong. It was intended to keep one christian group from using power of government to run over another christian group. If you actually took time you would learn that early in our history in some places a person could not even serve in our government if they didn't profess faith in Christ and belief in the bible. It really is enlightening when a person does the digging to learn.

Now have you ever read the Declaration of Indepenence or the Mayflower Compac? Probably not perhaps? Do some research sboat.


Sboatcar wrote:

I have actually read both of those documents. Neither of which are in use as legal documents in this day and age. Second, if you read some of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and any of the half dozen supreme court decisions regarding the separation of church and state, you can see that the law as it stands now is that the government doesn't mess with religious groups, and religious groups don't mess with the government. That is why churches are exempted from paying taxes.
Now you still have failed to say where the constitution establishes the United States as a Christian nation. If it were the case, would it not make sense to mention that in the document that establishes our government? Where exactly is our nation established as a Christian one? The Declaration of Independence does not found our government, and it is not a document that is used in our government. It does not establish the rights of the people or the government. The Mayflower Compact, while it was initially a governing document, also proclaimed oaths to the King of England. Neither of these documents are used as legal documents in this country, despite how much you might want it to be.
Listed below is some case history and links to letters about the first amendment, and particularly the 'establishment clause', which explain how our government views the first amendment. Remember, constitutional law is the law of the land, no matter what your own personal opinion may be.

Everson v New Jersey Board of Education (1947)

Background: The State of New Jersey passed a law giving state funding for student transportation to and from school for both parochial and public schools. It was challenged because it was thought to violate the establishment clause of the constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the law could stand because it did not hold any religious group above any other. Here is the opinion of Justice Hugo Black on this issue:
"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

This opinion cites Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptists of Danbury, CT. This is the famous 'wall of separation' letter, written by one of the first constitutional scholars, and one of the authors of the constitution itself. The text of which is below.

To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut

January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson
President of the United States


As both president of the United States and an author and signer of the constitution, to simply disregard this letter would be to disrespect both the constitution and the man himself.

One might also note that this ruling, which is seldom cited by activists against the separation of church and state, actually works in the favor of religious organizations.


Engel vs Vitale (1960)

Background: In Hyde Park, New York, a group of families felt that the mandatory school prayer at the beginning of the day was a violation of the first amendment's establishment clause. Briefs were filed in support of the suit by the American Ethical Union, the American Jewish Committee, and the Synagogue Council of America supporting the overturning of this policy.

The Supreme Court ruled that this prayer was a violation of the establishment clause of the constitution, because taxpayer money was being used to promote religion. The Court stated in this case:

"The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."

and also, later in the opinion:
"is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."


There have been several other Supreme Court rulings on this, including several about holiday displays, displays of the Ten Commandments, etc. In each case, the high court ruled that the separation of church and state is important out of respect for the church.


One should also not the writings of Union Theological Seminary historian Philip Schaff: “The American separation of church and state rests upon respect for the church; the separation, on indifference and hatred of the church, and of religion itself…. The constitution did not create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them already existing, and was framed for the purpose of protecting them under a republican form of government, in a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people.”


Finally, the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by Congress June 7, 1797, which established a peaceful relationship between the United States and the people of the Kingdom of Barbary (Tripoli). In article 11 of this treaty, it states:
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

It should be noted that this treaty was ratified by congress unanimously and signed by President John Adams, and very shortly after the signing of the constitution itself. I can continue to cite historical government documents which show that our government was created with the intention of being secular so as not to interfere with people's practice of their religion, but I believe that what I've posted so far makes the case pretty well. You can have whatever opinion you wish, but the law is the law, and it says that a 'wall of separation' exists between church and state.

I have been far less so and here, among friends on DU.

This poor sap is just parroting what he's heard from the pulpit. Since he's a parrot, you're unlikely to get through to him.

However, it was nicely done.

than to actually change anyone's beliefs. Although if this thread on a christian message board doesn't immediately get deleted, perhaps it will make someone think.

trying only makes it worse. What gets you off to the wrong start from the very beginning is saying that you don't know if there is a god. That cuts you off right away. As if you can't be a good person because you don't believe in god. Yet look at how many people die in the name of religion. Don't try to talk with these people they will not get your point. If Jesus came down from heaven they still won't believe you.

I imagine he will either continue to obfuscate or simply run away.

I will definitely post it if there is one.

I marvel at your patience and ability to instruct without condescension. I'm not sure this clown was worth your time and effort, but you acquitted yourself very well. :kick: AND Recommend!

but I did it anyway, sometimes I just can't stay away from a spirited debate, even when the person I debate with is intellectually dishonest and has their mindset somewhere other than in reality.

And who knows--you might actually convince someone with facts some day. That would be totally worth it! :hug:

Why do Catholic schools have to adhere to state standards? Shouldn't the separation of church and state also apply?

FAIL. Evolution is based on SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, you twit.

And this country was based on freedom FROM religion. What a nimrod.

but then he demanded and demanded to know my take on evolution and my religious beliefs. I think that the idea would be to try and break my credibility so he could look down his nose at me, figuratively speaking. I don't see how my personal beliefs have anything to do with the constitution. A person's opinion of the law and the law itself are two completely different things. Not only does the constitution specify the separation, but it has been upheld by the courts many times. I just will never understand why people can't just live in reality.

Uncertainty is too uncomfortable for these people. It demands critical thinking, assessment, determination of fact...it's just too damned uncomfortable. Much easier to bow to some "authority"
who tells you what is right and what is wrong.

--then baldness is a hair style.

planecap wrote:

Once again concerning the constitution I will deal not just with the constitution itself but the other documents that help lay the foundation for the constitution. Do you understand what I am saying here? Lets hope so because what I am saying is not that hard or difficult.

Now religion. Your definition:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.



By your own definition atheism is a religion. Look at the qoute: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. .............

Now take note of that abbreviation. ESP. That means especially but is does not mean exclusively. Atheism does in fact have beliefs about the cause, nature and purpose of the universe and is promoted through the theory of evolution. Therefore for you to say you have no religious beliefs is a lie. Atheism by even your own definition is a religion.

Now do I need to give you Websters definition, which by the way will back up what I am saying?


Sboatcar said:
I think you're missing the point and trying to change the topic of discussion here. I believe we were discussing the separation of church and state. So please, do go on with that discussion, as you have started another thread on exactly what you're talking bout.

I understand what you're doing here, the idea is to obfuscate and to try to find a way to attack me personally instead of talk about the actual issues at hand. I would like to also add that I do not appreciate being called a liar, as I have not lied about anything in this thread. I would suggest that you either return to the original topic of discussion, I am curious as to how you can use these other documents to show how there is no separation of church and state in this country, despite the high court ruling over and over again that there is, or that you stop this discussion altogether.

Lastly, if I were forced to put a name behind my lack of beliefs, then I guess atheism would be the closest fit, but simply not believing doesn't mean that I subscribe to any set of beliefs. If you say that believing in facts makes one an atheist, then anyone who ever believes in anything that is a fact is an atheist. Is the sky blue? Does gravity hold you in your chair? Does blood flow through your veins? If you said yes to any of these, you are agreeing with facts, and based on your syllogism, that would make you also an atheist.

but I think sometimes going over the top adds a little fun to the discussion.

Had to bite my fingers so I didn't get banned.

They are to be looked at, laughed at, smacked down, and left to their hysteric convulsions so others may see what idiots they are.

(Which is what you just did.)

"too mean to creationists."

... is the same as religion. You may want to point out that the theory of evolution is based on observation of the plants and animals of this world. If you call it "science", he will insist that science is a religion.

Folks like this are so determined to defend their position--because if it can't be defended
it creates enormous discomfort in the idea of being 'wrong'--that they will say anything, twist anything, turn anything upside down in order to be 'right'.

Hence atheism is religion to someone. That's just an absurd statement. Wouldn't it be fun to have a laugh key you could hit in response to someone--not just a graphic, but with sound, too?

:rofl:

Yet somehow I can't seem to stop a lot of the time. I do it more for the entertainment value than anything, and because on days like this where its very very slow at work, I need to do something to keep myself from falling asleep at my desk.

I could post more here on DU, but I find it more stimulating to talk to people who are basically polar opposites, and I generally take extra special care to be civil and not condescending towards them, even when they rain hellfire and brimstone down on me. I think the meltdowns are the most humorous parts, its text on the internet, if it makes you SO mad, don't read it.....but some people can't resist, and eventually they expose themselves for what they really are.

First time ever and I've been a member since 2004! (well, okay, my other member name was different and I ended up having to create a new account after changing my job and being unable to reset my password because I was locked out of that email).

Woohoo!!

Still wish someone could answer the question I asked earlier,concerning Catholic schools having to adhere to state requirements.